WHIPS AND SCORPIONS:

The following is again data taken from Conceived in Liberty whereby the idea is to reinforce the clear knowledge that law is voluntary association formed into a process that is due, long over due. The reference in the data from Conceived in Liberty includes a biblical reference that is parabolic (not in the mathematical sense) and useful to convey the meanings and workings of natural law principles. The whips and scorpions parable appears to me to be just another message from the cult of might makes right. I can explain this with an example offered in a movie about the Russian Front during World War II (a Central Bankers War) whereby Russian (Bolshevik) soldiers would fire upon Russian solders if Russian soldiers didn’t run unarmed into the hail of bullets fired by German (Nazi) soldiers. The whip and scorpion represents evil and less evil involuntary association; a.k.a. slavery.

Before re-publishing the words in Conceived in Liberty (to get to the point of the American past and present battle between the lawful and anti-lawful) the following may help in communicating the whips and scorpions reference used by Murray Rothbard in Conceived in Liberty:

From “Story of Bible Animals" by J.G. Wood

“My father made your yoke heavy, and I will add to your yoke; my father also chastised you with whips, but I will chastise you with scorpions.”

“The general tenor of this passage is evident enough, namely, that he intended to be far more severe that his father had been. But his words assume a new force when we remember that there was a kind of whip called a Scorpion. This terrible instrument was made for the express purpose of punishing slaves, each of which was loaded with knobs of metal, and tipped with a metal hook, so that it resembled the jointed and hooked tail of the Scorpion. This dreadful instrument of torture could kill a man by a few blows, and it was even used in combats in the amphitheatre, a gladiator armed with a Scorpion being matched against one armed with a spear.”

Now on to the American founding process:

“Dongan promptly convened the first representative assembly in New York history in October 1683 to the jubilation of the New Yorkers. The assembly had the power to levy taxes, though not to appropriate them, and its legislative acts were subject to the veto of the governor, Council, and the ultimate veto of the proprietor. Moreover, the power to convoke and dissolve the Assembly was strictly in the hands of the governor. The Assembly consisted of deputies from New York City, Long Island (King’s, Queen’s, and Suffolk counties), Kingston (Esopus County), Albany, Schenectady, Staten Island (Richmond County), Martha’s Vineyard and Nantucket (Duke’s County), and Cornwall (the Maine towns). The Assembly drew up a charter, which it eagerly sent to the Duke of York for approval, and which provided for regular meetings of the Assembly, trial by jury, due process of law, and the right of habeas corpus, restriction of martial law, and religious toleration of all Christians. But the New Yorkers were to find, once again, that the parable of being chastized with whips and then with scorpions could apply particularly well to them. For one thing, the Assembly met only once more, the following fall – with the exception of a brief session in the fall of 1685. And the charter didn’t last long, for in February 1685 King Charles II died and was replaced by the Duke of York, James II.”
Page 375

On the one side are supporters of involuntary association and all the associated consequences of investing in that growing power. The more numerous the investors the greater is that power. That power is ultimately empowered by the use of slaves. The slaves are told what to do, when to do it, how to do it, and they must obey or be whipped into obedience, or Scorpioned to death.

Now, for this present effort I will end with a few more comments and then a quote from Murray Rothbard that is also taken from Conceived in Liberty, but this next quote is a fast forward in the time-line of the American founding.

Clearly on the one side are those who work at building Empire on the backs of slaves, there is evil, some of it is greater, some of it is lesser, but it is evil, it is involuntary association, it is anti-law.

“In June of 1775, George Washington was appointed Major General and elected by Congress to be commander in chief of the American revolutionary forces. Although he took up his tasks energetically, Washington accomplished nothing militarily for the remainder of the year and more, nor did he try. His only campaign in 1775 was internal rather than external; it was directed against the American army as he found it, and was designed to extirpate the spirit of liberty pervading this unusually individualistic and democratic army of militiamen. In short, Washington set out to transform a people's army, uniquely suited for a libertarian revolution, into another orthodox and despotically ruled statist force after the familiar European model.
His primary aim was to crush the individualistic and democratic spirit of the American forces. For one thing, the officers of the militia were elected by their own men, and the discipline of repeated elections kept the officers from forming an aristocratic ruling caste typical of European armies of the period. The officers often drew little more pay than their men, and there were no hierarchical distinctions of rank imposed between officers and men. As a consequence, officers could not enforce their wills coercively on the soldiery. This New England equality horrified Washington's conservative and highly aristocratic soul.
To introduce a hierarchy of ruling caste, Washington insisted on distinctive decorations of dress in accordance with minute gradations of rank. As one observer phrased it: "New lords, new laws. … The strictest government is taking place, and great distinction is made between officers and soldier. Everyone is made to know his place and keep it." Despite the great expense involved, he also tried to stamp out individuality in the army by forcing uniforms upon them; but the scarcity of cloth made this plan unfeasible.
At least as important as distinctions in decoration was the introduction of extensive inequality in pay. Led by Washington and the other aristocratic southern delegates, and over the objections of Massachusetts, the Congress insisted on fixing a pay scale for generals and other officers considerably higher than that of the rank and file.
In addition to imposing a web of hierarchy on the Continental Army, Washington crushed liberty within by replacing individual responsibility by iron despotism and coercion. Severe and brutal punishments were imposed upon those soldiers whose sense of altruism failed to override their instinct for self-preservation. Furloughs were curtailed and girlfriends of soldiers were expelled from camp; above all, lengthy floggings were introduced for all practices that Washington considered esthetically or morally offensive. He even had the temerity to urge Congress to raise the maximum number of strikes of the lash from 39 to the enormous number of 500; fortunately, Congress refused.
In a few short months, Washington had succeeded in extirpating a zealous, happy, individualistic people's army, and transforming it into yet another statist army, filled with bored, resentful, and even mutinous soldiery. The only thing he could not do was force the troops to continue in camp after their terms of enlistment were up at the end of the year, and by now the soldiers were longing for home. In addition to all other factors, Americans were not geared — nor should they have been — for a lengthy conflict of position and attrition; they were not professional soldiers, and they were needed at their homes and jobs and on their farms. Had they been a frankly guerrilla army, there would have been no conflict between these roles.
As the end of 1775 drew near, then, Washington's main preoccupation was in forging a new army to replace the 17,000 men whose terms of enlistment were about to expire. His problems were aggravated by Congress's refusal to pay the bounties for enlistment New Englanders were used to receiving; instead caste distinctions were widened even further by raising officers' pay, while privates' pay remained the same. Only 3,500 of the old army agreed to reenlist; for the rest, very short-term enlistments of Massachusetts and New Hampshire men filled the gap until new enlistees finally swelled the total to about 10,000.
As might have been expected, the wealthy and aristocratic Washington, free from money worries, had little understanding of the economic plight of his soldiery. In contrast to the legends about his compassion, Washington railed about the defecting troops as being possessed of a "dirty mercenary spirit" and of "basely deserting the cause of their country.”

[mises.org]